5 ms·

By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. They usually won't even lo

• zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > By any normal definition these aren't criminal cases. It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms due to legal obligations towards the public. That is very much the definition of a criminal case. > People don't end up losing jobs, going behind bars, gaining criminal records. Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. > They simply cannot spread hate-speech. So, Titanic was spreading hate speech then? > The actual effects of this law in terms of possibly useful message lost are minuscule compared to the real culprits of goverment-enforced speech restrictions: namely copyrights ( and extras like DMCA) & libel laws. Those actually matter. Which is relevant to whether this is a good law how?
  • thesimon 9y ago
    >It is a decision made to limit your constitutional freedoms Just because your Facebook post is deleted does not mean your constitional right to free speech is limited.
    • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Correct. Which is why you might want to read the full context of this discussion, which should then tell you that this is not about "Facebook just deleting a post", but about the state systematically incentivising Facebook to act in such a way that if the state itself acted in that way, that would obviously be a violation of your constitutional freedoms. Indirect action through a private entity does not make otherwise unconstitutional things constitutional.
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        You know Germany doesn't govern itself according to the US constitution, yes?
        • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
          You know that the word "constitution" is not reserved for the US constitution, yes?
          • anigbrowl 9y ago
            You certainly seem to be trying to apply the standards of the US constitution to german law. I think you should be more specific if you wish to be clearly understood.
            • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
              How do I seem like that when I am talking about "the constitution" in the context of German law? Maybe I should also mention that I am talking about the German NetzDG, not the US NetzDG?
              • anigbrowl 9y ago
                Because most people write on HN in English and most HN users are American. I'm not, as it happens; but I don't know what constitutional freedoms you take for granted in Germany, as I'm not so familiar with your country's constitution, and it wasn't entirely obvious at first that you're German. The German Constitution is pretty long so it'd be really helpful if you could perhaps cite specific articles to provide some context for your assertions.
      • emn13 9y ago
        I don't think it's constructive to look at this in such a black and white fashion. Limiting speech is permitted and performed for good reason on a vast scale. Yes, there are similarly for good reasons limitations! Nobody has articulated that this restriction is harmful; nor protected; and certainly not why. By contrast, the harms of the messages limited thusly are rather more clear. Furthermore, you're trying to draw some really broad analogy, and find that facebook is the government and thus that constitutional protections apply to enforcement by facebook. I mean... that's murky at best - and note that even if this were direct government censureship it's not even clear this would be a bad idea or whether the hypothetical governmental corolloray would be constitutionally prohibited (which is particularly unclear since nobody knows exactly what that might be). Facebook is excercising disgression in which content to publish to whom, and when. They also happen to make a lot of money like that. So regardless of the original authors rights; it's not at all clear that facebook should be immune from prosecution for publishing prohibited content. In a sense, this new law is still letting them off unreasonably lightly. I think we as societies still need to figure out what the heck the age of data science means for free speech. I don't think being all fundamentalist about that is going to help, in any case.
    • StreamBright 9y ago
      It also does not mean that the issue is fixed.
    • coldtea 9y ago
      No, it just means that the "constitutional right to free speech" is limited and antiquated, and the modern means of speech, in the modern places where people gather to hear one another (social media), are censored without problem...
  • erAck 9y ago
    > Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. It is not, it is an administrative offence.
    • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Which is, in the broad sense, a subcategory of criminal law (as opposed to civil law).
      • geococcyxc 9y ago
        This is at least wrong in Germany, they are handled by different courts, will not show up on criminal record etc., it's more like a civil case, but with the government. Though of course you could park your car so horribly that it might get to be one, there's criminal neglect.
        • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
          Erm ... in which sense exactly is an Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren like a Zivilprozess? How are the courts different? Also, yes, "but with the government" is exactly what makes it a criminal case!? See also: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungswidrigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungswidrigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafrecht_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafrecht_(Deutschland)
          • geococcyxc 9y ago
            Sorry, I was wrong about the courts, but at first it is not even handled by a court or prosecutor at all, only by the administration. If the potential fine is not accepted it then indeed goes to criminal court.
            • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
              Well, yes, Ordnungswidrkeiten are "Straftaten light", if you will, so consequences are generally less severe, the process has a shortcut for undisputed cases, ... but the essence is still that the state makes a member of society experience some consequences for not following the law, and thus in particular the same constitutional protections apply.
  • anigbrowl 9y ago
    Parking in the wrong spot also doesn't lead to any of that, but it's still a criminal case. It actually isn't. PArking ticket and the like are administrative violations, not criminal. Admittedly most people are unaware of this distinction; unfortunately that lack of awareness is exploited by, for example, politicians and pundits who describe all undocumented immigrants as criminals, when in fact many of them are in administrative violation and might be deportable but are not guilty of criminal acts or subject to criminal penalties. So, Titanic was spreading hate speech then? Against who? I have a feeling I'm going to roll my eyes at the answer, though.
    • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > It actually isn't. PArking ticket and the like are administrative violations, not criminal. Which is, as I pointed out elsewhere, a subcategory of criminal law int he broad sense (as opposed to civil law). Yes, Ordnungswidrigkeiten are not Straftaten, but that is not what this discussion is about. Ordnungswidrigkeitenverfahren have the exact same constitutional limitations as Strafverfahren. > Against who? I have a feeling I'm going to roll my eyes at the answer, though. Maybe ask someone who claimed that the NetzDG only limits hate speech?
      • anigbrowl 9y ago
        Further conversation with someone who refuses to give a straight answer to a question is clearly a waste of time. Goodbye.